The relationship of the parties will appear from the folioing pedigree table: -

Parji

Uttam Dudhoo Bhaga

(Childless) I I

adopted son

Manorath

Ganga Ram Sri Ram Sharma Moti Ram Jallo Gokal Manorath

Beli Ram

adopted son

adoption in

question.

The Plaintiffs suit was for the cancellation of the deed of adoption dated 25th Baisakh 1975 whereby Manorath the real brother of Ganga Ram, Plaintiff No. 1 and uncle of other Plaintiffs adopted Beli Ram, Defendant No. 2 who, it is alleged, was the illegitimate son of one Mussammat Jindo, a Brahmani woman kept as wife by Manorath a Thakkur by caste. The defendants pleaded inter alia that the marriage of Mussammat Jindo, a Brahmani woman, with Manorath Thakkur was valid by custom-that Beli Ram was Manoraths own natural son from Mussammat Jindo and that consequently the adoption too was valid-that it was effected in 1953 with the consent of Jallo and Hari Ram the brothers of Ganga Ram-that the suit was, therefore, barred by time. The First Court held that the parties were governed by custom and not by Hindu Law-that according to the prevailing custom Thakurs could contract marriages with Brahman girls-that Beli Ram was the son of Mussammat Jindo but not of Manorath-that Manorath had in fact adopted Beli Ram in 1953 with the concurrence of Jallo and Hari Ram-that the object of this adoption was not merely to appoint an heir for his property but to obtain a son who should be able to perform obsequies and other religious rites after adoptive fathers death-that the document of 1975 was executed-merely to remove the legal defects in the previous documents of 1953 and 1961 and lastly that the suit was barred by time under Article 118 of the Limitation Law.

On appeal, the learned Chief Judge narrowed the issues to two points; viz., (1) as to the date of adoption and (2) as to limitation. After reviewing and criticising the Lower Courts judgment he came to the conclusion that the document of 1953 was in respect of an entirely a different person, namely, Ram Sarn and not of Beli Ram the present Defendant-that the document of 1961 remained unproved and consequently the only deed of adoption in favour of Beli Ram was the one of 1975 for the cancellation of which the present suit instituted on 27th Har 1979 was within time.

In appeal very elaborate arguments have been addressed to me on behalf of the parties. These arguments may be considered one by one. First and foremost the Appellants Advocate contends on the authority of Mullas Hindu Law, pages 167-170 that the property in the hand of Manorath the adopted son of Bhaga, must be deemed as separate and self-acquired property of the former. This contention cannot, however, be allowed to prevail. The defendants themselves in their pleadings relied upon custom as distinct from Hindu Law in all matters and it is too late a stage for them now to shift their ground and rely upon Hindu Law in matters of succession and inheritance. Moreover the First Court had distinctly held that the fact of Manorath being himself the adopted son of Bhaga, does not help the defendants in converting the property in his hand from ancestral into self-acquired. And the defendants do not appear to have contested this point in the Lower Appellate Court. The Ruling 63 Punjab Record of 1912 does not seem to me to apply to the facts of this case. There the suit was by distant reversioners for property in the hand of the adopted son and not for the cancellation of adoption. It was held there that according to custom amongst the agriculturists in the Punjab, an adoption has generally speaking the same effect as a gift, and where collaterals are too distantly related to the sonless preprietor to restrain his power of alienation by gift or otherwise, they cannot contest the adoption either.

The next point urged is that this adoption was really a customary appointment of an heir effected in 1953. This point, however, has b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document